Home > Views

Published on = Thursday, March=20 12, 2009 by TruthDig.com=20

Barack Obama, Meet Team B

by Scott Ritter

President Obama received a lesson in international gamesmanship last = week,=20 when his secret offer to trade the deployment of a controversial missile = defense=20 system in Eastern Europe for Russian assistance in getting Iran to back = down=20 from its nuclear program was publicly rebuffed. The lesson? You don't = get=20 something for nothing, especially when the something you're looking for = is,=20 itself, nothing.

If the members of the Obama administration would bother to take a = stroll down=20 memory lane, they might recall that once upon a time there was a = document called=20 the anti-ballistic missile treaty, signed in 1972 between the United = States and=20 the former Soviet Union, which recognized that anti-missile defense = shields were=20 inherently destabilizing, and as such should not be deployed. The ABM = treaty=20 represented the foundational agreement for a series of strategic arms = limitation=20 and arms reduction agreements that followed. President Obama was 10 = years old=20 when that treaty was signed. He was 40 years old when President George = W. Bush=20 withdrew from it, in December 2001, and set in motion a series of events = which=20 saw arms control between the U.S. and Russia completely unravel. The = proposed=20 U.S. missile defense shield, to be deployed in Poland and the Czech = Republic,=20 had the Russians talking about scrapping the INF treaty (which = eliminated two=20 classes of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that threatened Europe) and=20 deploying highly accurate SS-21 "Iskander" missiles within striking = range of the=20 proposed Polish interceptor site.

Russia did not create the missile defense system crisis. The United = States=20 did, and, as such, cannot expect to suddenly receive diplomatic credit = when it=20 puts this controversial program on the foreign policy gaming table as if = it were=20 a legitimate chip to be bargained away.

Russia has always, correctly, claimed that any missile defense system = deployed in Eastern Europe can only be directed at Russia. While both = the Bush=20 and Obama administrations denied that was the case, Poland has all but = admitted=20 its concerns are not about missiles coming from Tehran, but rather = missiles=20 coming from Moscow. The American "sweetener" for a potential Polish loss = of a=20 missile shield is to offer Poland advanced Patriot surface-to-air = missiles,=20 whose intended target is clearly not a Persian missile which cannot = reach Polish=20 soil, but rather Russian missiles and aircraft which can.

There are three basic facts that the Obama administration needs to = address,=20 but as of yet has not: First, missile defense systems are inherently=20 destabilizing and only contribute to the acquisition of offensive = counters=20 designed to defeat those defenses. Second, the rapid expansion of NATO = in the=20 past decade has in fact threatened Russia. And third, the Iranian = missile=20 "threat" to Europe has always been illusory.

The proposed U.S. missile defense shield in Eastern Europe has been a = highly=20 flawed concept from its very inception. Although it used unproven = technology, it=20 was sold as a means of protecting Europe from a threat that did not = exist=20 (Iranian missiles), while creating the conditions for exposing Europe to = a real=20 threat that the missile defense shield was incapable of defeating = (Russian=20 missiles). The fact that Obama would put the missile defense shield up = for trade=20 as part of a "Grand Bargain" with Russia on Iran only underscores how = little=20 value the system has to begin with. It is a big zero, both from a = military and=20 diplomacy perspective. Obama, in making it part of his bargain, = was trying=20 to give it value it lacked, and the Russians weren't buying.

The Iranian situation is far too real, but not in terms of the = dangers posed=20 by anything Iran itself is doing. The United States has not helped = matters by=20 hyping the threat posed by nonexistent Iranian missiles targeting Europe = and=20 capable of carrying nonexistent nuclear warheads. Russia has expressed a = desire=20 to work with the United States to better control Iran's program of = uranium=20 enrichment, which Iran and the nuclear watchdog, the International = Atomic Energy=20 Agency (IAEA), state has been clearly demonstrated as part of a peaceful = nuclear=20 energy program. For Russia to buy into Obama's "deal," it would have to = buy into=20 a threat from Iran's missile and nuclear programs, a threat Russia does = not=20 believe to exist.

Obama would do well to call in his national security team and have it = lay out=20 the intelligence information used to assert the Iranian threat. There = must be=20 such a foundational document, since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,=20 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff = Adm.=20 Michael Mullen and the president himself all have repeatedly referred to = the=20 "threat" posed by Iran's "nuclear weapons" ambitions. It is important to = distinguish between what we know and what we think we know. For = instance, we=20 know that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium, the kind = needed to=20 produce a nuclear weapon. Just ask Admiral Dennis Blair, the = Director of=20 National Intelligence. This is what he told the U.S. Senate Armed = Services=20 Committee this week in testimony on Iran. And yet many in the U.S. = intelligence community continue to state unequivocally that Iran is on = the verge=20 of possessing a nuclear weapon.

Obama should take each assertion put forward about Iran's nuclear = ambition=20 and then reverse-engineer the underlying factual basis for making that=20 assertion. If he did so, he would quickly find that he and his advisers = know=20 less about Iran than they think they do. The entire U.S. case against = Iran is=20 built on supposition and speculation. If the president disassembled the=20 speculative assertions, he would find them cobbled together from an=20 ideologically motivated methodology designed more to justify a policy of = containing and undermining Iran's theocracy than understanding its = nuclear=20 ambitions.

Obama ought to reacquaint himself with the 1972 ABM treaty and the = case of=20 the CIA versus "Team B." This chapter of America's failed arms control = policy=20 unfolded from 1975-1976, during the administration of Gerald Ford. Once = upon a=20 time, there was a Soviet Union, and a Cold War between the Soviet Union = and the=20 United States. In an effort to prevent the Cold War from becoming a "hot = war,"=20 the two powers launched arms control initiatives, packaged as part of a = larger=20 East-West d=C3=A9tente, to better manage the escalation of an arms race = derived from=20 Cold War tensions. It was critical in this effort to have an accurate=20 understanding of not only the physical reality of Soviet strategic = weapons=20 programs, but also their intent. The CIA produced a national = intelligence=20 estimate that addressed these issues, National Intelligence Estimate = (NIE)=20 11-3/8-74, "Soviet Forces for Intercontinental Conflict Through = 1985."

The benign picture painted by the CIA's estimate of Soviet strategic=20 capability clashed with ideologues in and out of government who were = pushing for=20 U.S. defense programs that could not be justified if the CIA's estimates = were=20 allowed to stand. Rather than confront the facts of the CIA's estimates, = these=20 ideologues instead assaulted the methodology used to determine them. = Political=20 pressure was brought to bear on President Ford by conservative opponents = of=20 d=C3=A9tente to prepare a "Team B" of analysts (outside ideologues) who = would=20 challenge the conclusions put forward in the CIA estimate by "Team A" = (the CIA's=20 own staff). "Team B" didn't produce better facts (indeed, every one of = its=20 assertions was proved to be wrong), but it did produce better fear. Its = claims=20 about Soviet intentions and capabilities, highly inflated and = inaccurate, were=20 political dynamite which could not be ignored, especially in the = politically=20 charged presidential election year of 1976. "Team B" won out over "Team = A," and=20 the foundation was set for not only the dismantling of U.S.-Soviet = d=C3=A9tente, but=20 also for the biggest arms race in modern history, culminating in the = destruction=20 of the very agreements designed to constrain such an escalation.

Obama should acquaint himself with the story of "Team B," because = "Team B"=20 exists today, propagating myths about an Iranian "threat" that are = analogous to=20 those employed by the team that sold the fable of the Soviet "threat." = The new=20 president was critical of the Iraq war, and the sad tale of = misinformation and=20 deception that has since been repackaged as an "intelligence failure." = There was=20 no "failure" because there was no "intelligence." "Team B" doesn't = produce=20 intelligence, but rather ideological assertions used as justification = for=20 policy. The same "Team B"-based methodologies which gave us the Iraq = assertions=20 about WMD programs are in play today in the Iran "intelligence" used by=20 President Obama and his national security team.

Obama might be surprised that one of the programs being sold by "Team = B" in=20 its assault on truth was a missile defense shield to counter the team's=20 perception of a Soviet missile threat. The falsehoods and fabrications = sold by=20 "Team B" back in the 1970s set America on the path toward the withdrawal = from=20 the ABM treaty in 2001, and the proposed deployment of the very missile = defense=20 shield Obama is trying to bargain away to get Russia to help confront an = Iranian=20 "threat" manufactured by none other than "Team B."

Secretary of State Clinton impressed many when she spoke of the need = for=20 America to embrace "smart power." The implication of her words was that = the=20 United States, under President Obama, would use all the tools available, = especially diplomacy, in seeking to solve the myriad problems it faces = around=20 the world in the post-Bush era, including the problem of Iran. But one = cannot=20 begin to solve a problem unless one first accurately defines the = problem, for=20 without that definition the "solution" would in fact solve nothing. Any = solution=20 to the problem of Iran must be derived from an accurate intelligence = picture of=20 what is transpiring inside the country today, one drawn more from fact = than=20 ideologically based fiction. Obama is advised to challenge the totality = of the=20 current U.S. intelligence used to define Iran as a threat, and purge = once and=20 for all the corrupting ideological "Team B" holdovers who still reside = within=20 the structure of the American intelligence community. Intelligence is = never=20 about hearing what you want to hear, but rather about learning what you = need to=20 know.

Obama needs to learn the truth about Iran, and about the proposed = missile=20 defense system in Europe. This truth would be inconvenient, but it would = also=20 liberate him to develop meaningful solutions to serious problems in a = manner=20 which avoids a repeat of his embarrassing "Grand Bargain" gambit with = Russia,=20 trying to trade nothing for nothing in an effort to certify something = for=20 nothing. There are a lot of "zero sums" in that equation, which pretty = much sums=20 up Obama's Iran and Russia policies to date.

=C2=A9 2009 TruthDig.com

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to = 1991 and=20 a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to = 1998. He=20 is the author of numerous books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) , "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006) and his = latest, "Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar = Movement" (Nation=20 Books, April 2007).

Posted in foreign=20 policy, missile=20 defense, R= ussia

44 Comments so far

Show = All

jclientelle March 12th, 2009 10:52 pm

Good article. A missile shield at this point in history is a money = making=20 scam for the war industry.

I hope that someone sober and courageous in the Obama administration, = Congress or the intelligence community will take up Ritter's idea of = "reverse=20 engineering" the details of the gossip and innuendo about Iran's nuclear = capability and intentions. And then issue a public report.

If not, how about an independent group including possibly Ritter, = Chalmers=20 Johnson, Ann Wright and Steven Kinzer to investigate this and to visit = Iran?

Joe

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

palerimo March 12th, 2009 9:33 pm

Check out "The Power of Nightmares," a BBC documentary, for a fairly = lengthy=20 description of Team B.

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

myconscience March 12th, 2009 9:15 pm

Ritter makes sense to me.

Does anyone else see Clinton's important role in setting up The Iraq=20 Invasion/Occupation? Clinton sold his soul to the devil by assuring that = he=20 would give Team B a "Iraq regime change law" and no-fly zones and = Operation=20 Desert Fox and more. The Bush admnistration used all of Clinton's words = and=20 deeds to make his case for war.

Is it possible that Obama has also sold his soul to the devil to get = into=20 office? Perhaps it is Obama's job to pass "Iran regime change law" and = possibly=20 get some form of UN Resolution promising "serious consequences" if Iran = refuses=20 to prove with 100% absolute certainty that there are no WMD anywhere in = their=20 giant country.

Uh oh.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

jonahprophet March 12th, 2009 8:08 pm

New video just put out by Alex Jones of INFOWARS.com
Called The = Obama=20 Deception. Its almost 2 hrs long, but worth=20 watching.
----------------------

Type in THE OBAMA DECEPTION into Google Video- Commondreams CENSORED = the=20 google video link

----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------

Good video put out recently by Alex Jones of http://infowars.com
A = few=20 points/criticisms of this video:

1. It fails to finger the International Rothschild JEWISH elite hq'ed = in the=20 CITY of London, UK, who sit at the very top of the global new world = order=20 pyramid.
The Bilderberg Group serve the Jews.

2. Failure to expose the US Federal Reserve Bank in the USA. Yes the = US=20 Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank, but again, Jones
fails to = expose=20 the International JEWISH Rothschild Banking Empire, who are, in fact, = its sole=20 owners.

3. Jones is wrong on the issue of Global Warming. Global Climate = Change is=20 the #1 international security issue on the planet in 2009,
and is = slated to=20 destroy the lives of BILLIONS of human beings on the planet if it is not = addressed quickly.

4. A good analysis on Africa regarding the issue of resources, as = well as=20 being the next theatre of war operations for the global Military = Industrial=20 Intelligence Complex.

5. Jones is WRONG on the formation of World Government, which is a = natural=20 progression of human evolution and inevitable. HOW it comes into = formation, not=20 whether, is the real concern at issue here. The answer to 1984 is NOT = 1776, its=20 2001- a higher form of intelligence and being.
Wake up Patriots, = we're in the=20 21st century, not the 17th, 18th or 19th!
EVOLVE.

Lastly, is Obama a Falasha Jew? Has anyone noticed that he is = Left-handed?=20 Jones is good at what he does, yet one cannot help but wonder if he is = just a=20 negative "dialectic" being used by the International Jewish Elite to = help bring=20 the Jew World Order into being. The stronger international new world = order=20 resistance becomes, the stronger the new world order will become and the = faster=20 it will come into being.

Inshallah,

Jonas the Prophet
California=20 USA
http://geocities.com/greenstars774

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Mister Chips March 13th, 2009 10:20 am

I haven't viewed "The Obama Deception" yet, but this post appears at = first=20 glance to be a psyop to misrepresent and detract. The posting threads on = Infowars are full of this. Jones has extensively covered the = Rothschilds, the=20 Rockefellers, the Warburgs, etc., etc., but your singe-minded emphasis = on "The=20 Jew World Order" seems to have a purpose all it's own--to somehow tie in = "JEW"=20 and all it's negative connotations to your "supposedly positive" take on = Alex=20 Jones' film. And really, "The stronger international new world order = resistance=20 becomes, the stronger the new world order will become and the faster it = will=20 come into being." I've considered that possibility, too, but I don't = think it's=20 a very helpful or productive position. Are you one who thinks we should = casually=20 observe and wait for some kind of "rapture"? I think you are very = misleading and=20 possibly already a willing servant of the New World Order.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

zmann March 13th, 2009 7:29 am

I would not consider infowars.com reliable in any way.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Mister Chips March 13th, 2009 9:37 am

You might consider using a variety of smaller brushes when your = roller won't=20 do.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

slugger March 12th, 2009 9:21 pm

What a bunch of crap again from the greatest conspiracy promoter of = all=20 time.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Bill from Saginaw March 12th, 2009 7:10 pm

Another fine piece of analysis by Scott Ritter.

Okay, if Team B is still alive and well, generating ideologically = driven=20 national intelligence estimates parallel to the intelligence analysis of = the=20 CIA's staff professionals, ponder for just a moment how the Obama team = has tried=20 to deal with the pernicious role that's been played by this cabal of = right wing=20 clowns for the last thirty years, as Scott has so vividly described = it.

The bureaucratic mechanism selected was to put Leon Panetta in as = head of the=20 CIA, and then require all sixteen separate US intelligence agencies to = funnel=20 their input into the hands of the new Director of National Intelligence, = Admiral=20 Blair. Thus, Team B has to put its bullshit into the same funnel as = everybody=20 else, along with NSA, DIA, and all the other Pentagon-based intelligence = agencies that were so grotesquely empowered by Bush/Cheney at the = expense of the=20 dwindling number of honest civilian analysts still holding on over at=20 Langley.

President Obama is then briefed in totality, based upon the combined=20 intelligence work product of all sixteen agencies, by NSC director Blair = and/or=20 by the chairman of the National Security Council advisory board. Who is = that?=20 Well, until just yesterday, that was supposed to be a man named Charles = Freeman=20 - a career diplomat, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and a man = with a=20 reputation for speaking realpolitik truth to power.

Scott's discourse on the history of Team B might best be viewed in = the light=20 of yesterday's vicious in-fighting inside the DC beltway, in which = Charles=20 Freeman ultimately came out on the short end of the stick. At this = moment, the=20 NSC chairmanship seat remains vacant, and it will remain vacant until = filled by=20 a different Obama appointee (this is not a position that requires Senate = confirmation).

So how about Scott Ritter?

How about Andrew Bacevich?

Or Chalmers Johnson, or Juan Cole?

Or if you really want to put a bug up Team B's ass, maybe go with Roy = McGovern, head of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity?

Personally, I think professor Andrew Bacevich would be a perfect = fit.

The name of the game is reasserting responsible civilian political=20 accountability and policy control over our sprawling national = intelligence=20 bureaucracy. That task is in the hands of Panetta, Blair, and whoever = fills that=20 NSC board chairman seat.

No matter what manner of drooling neocon troglodytes there are out = there=20 holding down slots in Team B, or in the Pentagon, or in the rest of the = shadowy=20 Homeland Security spook power heirarchy Bush/Cheney left in their wake, = all=20 those boys and girls still have to send their work product up the new = NSC chain=20 of command structure. There, the wheat shall be separated from the = chaff. And=20 there, every intelligence agency's past records can be ordered produced, = regardless of security classification.

Come on, Barry. Pull the trigger. The fat is in the fire. They took = down your=20 boy Chas Freeman yesterday, but tomorrow's another day.

Like your campaign team always used to say, one of the things we = respect the=20 most about Barack Obama is his uncanny ability to so often turn lemons = into=20 lemonade.

Bill from Saginaw

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

actually March 12th, 2009 6:20 pm

For what it's worth, the Supreme Leader of Iran has issued a fatwa = stating=20 that for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is haram, a sin. In all the talk = about=20 Iran's supposed nuke program, nobody mentions that central fact:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

JWVerez March 12th, 2009 5:41 pm

Team B? Good luck. Maybe somewhere in Obama's 2nd term provided he = even gets=20 it, hehe.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

kogwonton March 12th, 2009 4:36 pm

It seems to me that the U.S. govt. has to do its negotiating with = Team-B, and=20 that international negotiations are the real farce. I mean, seriously, = somebody=20 sure has our government dancing on a string. I wonder if we can get a = missile=20 defense shield against Team-B if we refuse to negotiate with them and = their=20 defense industry/drug (war)/terrorist mafia bosses? If Obama really = needs some=20 schooling on these fascist thugs then why in the hell did we vote for = him?=20 Surely he can't be that ignorant. Maybe he thought the Russians would = play=20 along? It seems to me that Team B is the real threat to world peace = right now=20 and maybe they should all have a stay in Guantanamo and think things=20 over.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

suetr1 March 12th, 2009 4:21 pm

The reason why Ritter isn't invited on the talk shows and isn't in = the media=20 in general is that some years ago he was involved in a personal scandal = with his=20 family which was blown up by the radical right. The truth isn't = available to the=20 public, evidently, but I don't believe that he went to jail. It was a = serious=20 charge but could have been retracted. All media except for websites have = boycotted him, it seems.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

endCapitalism March 13th, 2009 10:19 am

What a bunch of bullshit. Ritter isn't in the media because the media = is=20 owned by the corporate elites - the very bunch of people dedicated to = American=20 imperialism and hegemony in this World. Anyone with a real alternative=20 viewpoint, such as Michael Parenti, are never given access to the Mass = Media of=20 Deception. It has nothing to do with their personal lives. And when = someone with=20 alternative views does make it to the corporate owned media, you get = outrageous=20 shit like this ...

http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/1026/1/27/

-----------------------------------------

What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class = needs to=20 know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

azjoe March 12th, 2009 7:52 pm

suetr1

In approximately 2000 Marine Intel Officer Scott Ritter was arrested = in=20 Colonie upstate New York in an internet sex sting.

Mr. Ritter allegedly lured a 16 year old girl to a motel room. She = was a=20 cop.
Though not convicted, an 'agreement' was reached involving=20 counseling.

This agreement according to Mr. Ritter prohibits him from discussing = the=20 incident.
His lawyer declined to.

(Me, I NEVER heard of someone who was innocent whose lawyer would NOT = discuss=20 a case/incident. No one has. Ever in the history of jurisprudence.)

I'll bet he was surprised, dreaming of showing a little girl his gun = and an=20 undercover police officer shoves one in his face.

His attorney, "We have NO comment."
Scott Ritter, "The agreement = precludes=20 ANY discussion of the agreement."

-Agreements with convictions avoided upon successful counseling = completion=20 happen 100,000 times a day in the US.

Yup. Sure sound innocent to me.....I'm sure glad it was a cop and not = my=20 niece.
Joe.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

jclientelle March 12th, 2009 10:53 pm

I am tired of the SELECTIVE silencing of independent voices based on = their=20 private sexual behavior, which really should not be monitored on a = regular=20 basis. Remember the damage and distraction of the two year Starr = commission? And=20 why was Spitzer even being watched as he arranged for consensual sex = with an=20 adult woman, a pro?

Let's grow up. Sex is normal, a strong appetite and people do not = always=20 behave well. Get over it. If a child is involved, press charges. = Otherwise, put=20 it in perspective vs. stealing billions or causing wars and = slaughter.

Joe

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

azjoe March 13th, 2009 4:34 am

jclientelle,

You tell me to get over it, sex is a strong appetite, pepole don't = always=20 behave well. Maybe you don't. I'm sorry for your partners then.

You don't deny Scotty likes little girls. 16 is a baby dude. Let her = grow=20 up.

I stand by my post. It is documented. He got caught in a sting.

He was 41 years old and thought the child he would F*** was 16. = Thought she=20 was sneaking away for their rendevousz. She a minor in New York State. = For a=20 reason.

Joe, I don't care what adults do with each other. Period. But = children have=20 to be protected. Against people like little Scotty, I wonder if he was = gonna=20 bring her a teddy bear or coookies.

Sick to the Core
Defend it some More,
If it's someting = that
You=20 don't deplore.....

Joe, you were QUICK to say people don't always behave well sexually, = a scary=20 declaration in and of itself, any-way, tell me, when they misbehave, do = they=20 have to be punished Joe? Severely?

I need a bong hit now. Good-bye.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Hoarseface March 14th, 2009 10:14 am

I have to agree that, provided what you said about Ritter's unsavory = past is=20 true and he is in fact guilty, it should not simply be excused by = equivocations=20 like "people don't always behave well sexually" which to me sounds like = a=20 response of someone who would hold another individual, of other = political views,=20 to a different standard if the tables were turned.

However, an individual's political views, much less the factual = assertions=20 they use to buttress an argument, are NOT invalidated purely because of = a=20 questionable sexual history. Bringing up Ritter's sexual past is NOT a = rebuttal=20 of the assertions or conclusions in his article, or the history cited as = their=20 basis. It is misdirection, and 9 times out of 10 when this type of thing = happens=20 it is because the person who brings up say, an unflattering sexual = history is=20 incapable or unwilling to argue the political subject matter on it's own = merits,=20 and resorts to character assassination instead.

-Hoarseface

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

azjoe March 14th, 2009 10:49 am

Hoarseface-You are correct.

Ritter's denigrating scoffing at Obama, he is losing a "zero-sum" = game with=20 Russia & Iran is incorrect. Iran, the winner of the Iraq war, has = see a bit=20 of rapprochement under Obama as has Russia, both of whom may would have = been=20 engaged in hot wars by McCain by now. Thank God Obama has not taken us=20 there.

Far from losing, Obama is reaching out, to Russia, Iran & the = Taliban,=20 historical adversaries we would be fighting if Obama had not been = elected.

So I conclude Ritter's political conclusions are absurd. Ritter's = analysis is=20 dead wrong. Please rebutt.

On a Personal Note-(I still conclude he is a sexual predator as well. = Public=20 figures caught in stings must endure this. And honestly, from the first = article=20 I read by him I felt something was not right, purely subjective, years = ago.

Further, I only learned he prefers children sexually yesterday. I = disliked=20 him well prior.)

Joe.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

jclientelle March 13th, 2009 1:01 pm

If they use force or differential power (old - young, landlord - = tenant,=20 teacher - student) then they are very wrong and should be held = accountable.=20 "People don't always behave well sexually" - I'll stand by that. That is = what I=20 have observed. It does not include me. I am as faithful as Old Shep = :).

Obivously, people should be responsible sexually. It's just that if = someone=20 is a whistleblower or has an important job to do or a story to tell, = their=20 alleged sexual behavior is to be noted, but not used to invalidate their = information. If there has been a crime, indict. Otherwise it is just = talk.

Joe

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

azjoe March 13th, 2009 2:19 pm

jclientelle. Wow, Joe, You have got my undying respect I kid you not. = I write=20 a hot, I knew it was, post. Yet you calmy and intelligently respond and = make=20 your point succinctly-truly, All my respect. This of style.

On The Substance of Life,

Do no harm, Do Good, Love God.
Don't hurt other people.
Feed = hungry=20 people.

Do no harm, Do Good, Love God,

Thanks For Your Decent, your Positive vibe.
As my daughter would = say, Hey,=20 You're Awesome.

Humbly, Joe as well.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

actually March 12th, 2009 6:23 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76434,00.html

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

voxclamantis March 12th, 2009 4:04 pm

Couldn't all this amateur gamesmanship be dispensed with if, instead = of=20 sitting at home making up stories, world leaders were required to invite = each=20 other to dinner once a week? After an all nighter with a bottle of = vodka, Obama=20 would have a much better idea how to talk to Russians.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Urbanismo March 12th, 2009 1:39 pm

http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/12loweringtheante/loweringtheante.html

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

ezeflyer March 12th, 2009 12:54 pm

Its the conservatives stupid!

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

joehope March 12th, 2009 5:20 pm

Exactly!

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Thomas More March 12th, 2009 1:22 pm

Not just conservatives.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

ezeflyer March 12th, 2009 1:31 pm

Who else?

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

joehope March 12th, 2009 5:21 pm

It's not the Democrats who are the problem.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

endCapitalism March 13th, 2009 10:10 am

Historically the Democrats have been worse than the Republicans when = it comes=20 to foreign policy. No argument there. Look back, beyond GW Bush at your = history.=20 The Democrats have been the party of American imperialism and its worst = abuses=20 throughout the world.

-----------------------------------------

What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class = needs to=20 know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Mordechai Shiblikov March 12th, 2009 2:17 = pm

They're not true conservatives. They're reactionaries and crypto = fascists who=20 would destroy this nation rather than give up one bullet in the arsenal = or one=20 square inch of the Empire. Every day that passes gives me the sinking = feeling=20 that 8 years of George Wanker Bush and his cronies has fatally poisoned = the=20 United States. We are now like the protagonist of a Film Noir, twisting = and=20 turning, trying desperately to escape the past, never realizing there's = no way=20 out.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

ezeflyer March 12th, 2009 5:30 pm

You are referring to conservatives in the old sense of the word = meaning=20 frugal, thrifty, careful, etc., which they have proved to be the exact = opposite=20 of.

Just like they voted for Hitler and Stalin, conservatives voted for = the Bush=20 reactionaries, crypto fascists and neocons. Yes, the sweet little old=20 conservative lady that's afraid of colored people and the old gent that = thinks=20 liberals are unpatriotic, un-Christian and coddle violent criminals (who = all=20 happen to be conservative). Are we going to absolve them of = responsibility for=20 putting these Nazis in power?

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises = in moral=20 philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for=20 selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

ahshap March 12th, 2009 11:50 am

Poor old ignorant gullible American voters. The were told by this = president=20 that there would be a "change we can believe in". We have yet another = president=20 who fed us a line of Bull---t. He has appointed the same old chicken = hawks that=20 the previous president had on staff, with a few exceptions, who seem to = be=20 buying the line of Bull---t that pleases the conservatives and the = corporations.=20 The U.S. needs logical independent thinking people like Ritter, who have = the=20 interest of the survival of the nation in mind, making decisions instead = of=20 these tired old has beens that have been proven wrong so often. Come on = Obama,=20 WAKE UP! A man of your seeming intelligence should be embarrassed with = our=20 foreign policy and the irresponsible wonks that create it. Lets see some = of that=20 positive "CHANGE" you told us about.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

cassandra March 12th, 2009 11:31 am

A solution to the problem of missile defense in Eastern Europe was = offered by=20 Pat Buchanan (and others I can't remember). He understands we should not = be=20 threatening Russia or Iran. He said Obama should tell the governments of = Poland=20 and Czech Republic that they should allow their citizens to vote on the = missile=20 deployment and the U.S. would accept the results. Apparently, the people = in=20 those countries are very opposed to this.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

TheProf March 12th, 2009 7:29 pm

Missile defense in Eastern Europe is not a problem.

ABM's only work well in simulations or against few missiles. Ritter, = in this=20 excellent article, does not explain why they are destabilizing. The = reason is=20 that they are offensive weapons that invite an overwhelming strike by = the US=20 against Russia while relying on the ABMs to kill the few remaining = Russian=20 counterstrike missiles. For this reason they destabilize MAD (mutual = assured=20 destruction).

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Thomas More March 12th, 2009 12:09 pm

Good point!

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

glenn ford March 12th, 2009 10:19 am

Sec. of State Ritter

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

therzal March 12th, 2009 10:19 am

And the most diligent liars on Team B were (*Gassssppp*) Cheney and=20 Rumsfeld..
Barbarians all..

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

tommy_slothrop March 12th, 2009 4:03 pm

You left out Wolfowitz and Perle.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Gorsegrower March 12th, 2009 10:10 am

Curiously, the piece fails to mention that a key player, if not the = leader of=20 Team B was a fellow named George Herbert Walker Bush.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

PJD March 12th, 2009 10:07 am

Scott Ritter presents his impressive command of fact and logical = analysis, as=20 usual.

Is he on the the National Security Council, or better yet, an = Undersecretary=20 of State for ME affairs? Was this article be part of an official report? = Will=20 any person with any kind position to make policy ever read this?

No, he must publish his well-informed comment in the an obscure, news = website, to be reprinted here in another obscure site.

Why wasn't ther a place for Ritter in the Obama administration? He is = even=20 republican leaning, so the appearance of "bi-partisanship" would be=20 maintained.

There are others. Prof. Chalmers Johnson and Prof. Juan Cole - = experts in=20 their own respective fields of the war industry and US mideast policy - = banished=20 to obscure blogs and documentary films that play on obscure, moldy = art-movie=20 house screens.

---USAn---

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Thomas More March 12th, 2009 12:11 pm

Excellent comment.

Ritter is well respected in the Corp I understand and I believe he is = correct=20 in what he says.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

zmann March 12th, 2009 9:51 am

How long have they been using Iran as a scapegoat? Back during the = Battle of=20 the Cities, Iran's missiles were totally inaccurate, even just over a = range of a=20 few hundred miles. What fricking moron can seriously believe they could = target=20 anything in Europe?

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

raydelcamino March 12th, 2009 10:43 am

Boogeyman politics has proven profitable for the military industrial = media=20 complex(MIMC) for decades.

When the 40 year cold war revenue stream ended, the war on drugs and = war on=20 terror took on the heavy lifting to provide the MIMC an eternal revenue=20 stream.

Login=20 or register=20 to post comments=20
rep= ort=20 this comment

Join the discussion:

You must be logged=20 in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here=20 to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email = address to=20 anyone.)

CommonDreams.org

Barack Obama, Meet Team B

44 Comments so far

Comment viewing options

Join the discussion: